OWENSVILLE — A proposed ordinance that would have fined business owners for false alarms from third-party alarm companies if responded to by the Owensville Police Department (OPD) failed to pass during a Monday Board of Aldermen meeting.

Although the proposal received two out of three votes from the aldermen present at the Oct. 20 meeting, with Ward 2 Alderman Matt Kramme absent, state statute requires the majority of elected members of the board being in approval of an ordinance. Therefore, according to memo from City Clerk Peggy Farrell on Tuesday morning, the ordinance failed.

Ward 1 Alderman Dan Breeden introduced the proposal at an earlier meeting. He then researched solutions to the issue from other towns and copied theirs. Breeden told The Republican Tuesday that his focus is solving issues faced by local first responders such as the fire and police departments without hurting citizens, comparing the measure to approval of chickens within city limits and limiting use of slot machines to those age 21 and under.

“In the past, multiple officers have been called out to businesses multiple times due to false alarms to go out to the business and find there is no issue,” he said. “The (problem causing the false alarm) wouldn’t get fixed because there are no consequences.”

The main thing he wanted to convey was that he feels the ordinance will not affect anyone negatively. He shared that although it is a rare issue, the measure would help the police remain available for valid issues and save taxpayers’ money.

Proposed Ordinance 1490 defined a false alarm as the activation of an alarm system through mechanical failure, malfunction, improper installation or through the negligence of or misuse by the owner, lessee, employee or agent, whereby the police are summoned when there is no incident occurring or having occurred as reported by the alarm.

Not defined as a false alarm were alerts attributed to certain weather conditions or telephone lines and alarms triggered by vandalism or destruction of property.

Under the proposal, a warning would be issued for the first alarm within one calendar year, a service fee of $100 by the commercial business subscriber for the second false alarm and a fee of $200 for the third and subsequent false alarms in a calendar year. Counts would revert to zero on the first of each year. Additionally, a grace period of 30 days would be provided upon installation of a new alarm. Fees would be due within 15 days following the false alarm and failure to pay the fee would result in the inability to renew future business licenses and other penalties under applicable law.

Prior to the vote, Lahmeyer asked the board, “are we really sure we want this?”

Lahmeyer shared with The Republican that her concerns include the small volume of reported false alarms and the possibility that crime is actually being deterred by the alarms.

Without security cameras on a business, there is no way to tell if the alarm was triggered by an effort to break-in unless there are visible signs of attempted forced entry.

When the board asked his thoughts on the issue several weeks ago, Griffith informed the board that it is not a current issue, but that if they asked three years ago it may have been as the rates of false alarms fluctuates.

After the board decided to move forward with the reading of the related Bill 2025-27, Ward 2 Alderman Denise Bohl requested the first reading, Breeden requested the second and Board President and Ward 1 Alderman Dr. Cathy Lahmeyer requested the third. Bohl and Breeden voted in favor and Lahmeyer voted against. The meeting adjourned with Farrell telling aldermen she would check with the city attorney to clarify the proper vote result which did fail.

Breeden told The Republican on Tuesday that for the proposal to move forward he would have to push  the issue.